In my opinion the Tenth Amendment is so short and vague that it's hard to tell what it's supposed to mean. I'm not saying that I agree with the following Supreme Court decision, or even that it makes any sense, but if you agree that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is and is not Constitutional then this appears to invalidate your Constitution-based protest:

... the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and that was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.

Remember, I didn't bring up the Constitution; you did. I only stated how I think things ought to be.